Our human existence is marked by stories. Stories are the
way that we make sense of the world around us. They frame our discussions, but
they also frame the way that we experience the bare facts of existence. All
reality that we experience takes place in the context of the stories that we
tell ourselves, and they are essential to our human nature. Without them, we
would have no idea how to comprehend the events that make up our lives and the
lives of those around us.
These stories come from a variety of sources: our culture,
our families, religious beliefs, and even our own personal conclusions. When I
teach students about the concept of “worldview”, it is really these stories
that I am referring to. Of course, these stories can change over time as we
find evidence that might contract a long-held belief. Still, as these larger
stories form the framework for our thought processes, it can be very difficult
to challenge the overriding elements of the story that we take for granted.
What we are seeing now in our country and our world is, in
my view, a grand conflict between competing stories. It is a somewhat gross
simplification for me to suggest that there are only two opposing stories right
now, but for the sake of discussion I will focus on just two. Let’s call them
the story of Abundance and the story of Scarcity.
The story of Abundance begins with the fundamental belief
that the universe provides the sufficient means for life – and not just mere
existence, but “abundant” life. This means that the raw materials for all
living things to exist harmoniously and to live relatively well are provided by
nature itself. This story does not require nor preclude any sort of religious
belief – a Christian, an animist, or an atheist could all believe this story
with equal consistency. The point is that the means for living well are there,
not how they got there or who or what perpetuates them.
The definition of living “well” is, of course, subjective,
but in the Abundance story it is generally agreed that living well involves
taking no more out of the system of resources than is required for a fully
realized existence. Boundaries are necessitated by the realities of the
delicate balance required to sustain this optimal life. If one group of beings
starts taking more than their share, it will cause the entire system to suffer,
but the system is self-correcting in that the takers will eventually feel the
consequences of their actions. In other words, the greedy animal soon finds
himself starving when he can’t control his appetite. Whether this is enforced
by divine providence, karma, or just the laws of nature doesn’t matter as much
as the recognition that it will happen.
In the story of Abundance things have intrinsic value. They
are all equally valuable merely by the fact of their existence, and also
because the existence of all things is interconnected. Power is largely an
illusory concept because the real power lies in nature, the universe, or in
some form of divinity. Therefore power is best used as a tool to work with the
greater forces of nature, not to subdue or contain them in some concept of
certainty. An archetypal person for the Abundance story might the Farmer, who
works with and respects the land, and seeks to know it without dominating or
controlling it while at the same time benefiting from it.
Those whose realities are formed by the story of Abundance
recognize that the present world does not operate according to this paradigm.
Therefore, they work, as they can, to restore the essential balance as much as
possible, by whatever actions they can. They do this because they have the
faith that the balance does exist, and can be restored even when it seems
unlikely. Martin Luther King Jr’s quote referring to “the arc of the moral
universe” that “bends toward justice” is an example of the Abundance story
being conceptualized and articulated.
In the story of Scarcity, the benevolent nature of the
universe is called into question. Instead of sufficiency, this story tells of a
lack of resources. Since resources are inherently limited, the questions of
survival and of flourishing are matters of competition – competition within the
system with other beings, and competition with the system itself.
Like the story of Abundance, the story of Scarcity does not
belong solely to the religious or non-religious. There are plenty of belief
systems on all sides of the spiritual spectrum that hold to some version of
this story. The bottom line is that the universe is essentially a hostile place
to life, and in order to continue surviving, living things must to some extent
take matters into their own hands. This is the largely pessimistic counterpoint
to the story of Abundance.
Boundaries are also necessary according to this story, but
primarily for protection against the forces that seek to diminish life. These
elements of chaos are seen as being at war with life, and thus need to be held
back, subjugated, or eradicated entirely. There is a strong dualism at work in
this story – the binary opposition between dark and light, good and evil, chaos
and control. Things are identified based upon which side of the dichotomy they
fall.
Value and power both play important roles in the story of
Scarcity. Value is based primarily on utility, whether in the form of
expertise, strength, economic value, or other forms. Things increase in value
as utility increases, and more valuable things are held in higher esteem. Power
is closely connected to this, because power is necessary to retain value, lest
it be taken away by others. Power is also necessary to control the
unpredictable elements of both human and wild nature. Knowledge adds to power
by increasing certainty, which allows for greater means of control. The
archetypal person is the industrialist who uses knowledge (and its resultant
product, technology) to bring will to power.
As I said before, this is a very simplistic categorization
of worldviews. However, I would risk to say that some version of either of
these two stories underpins the thinking of many people in our modern world. It
is because of the deep differences in these stories that two people can
experience the same events, and yet interpret them so differently. How could
they not, when the ends lead to such different conclusions? It is from these differences
that we see the rifts in our society, which have become that much more clearly
defined in a very short period of time.
How can we stand on common ground, when our stories give us
radically different meanings to the very ground itself? Do we resort to
tribalism? Do we resign to nihilism, giving up on the hope of ever finding a
solution? At this point I’m not sure, but I do know that conversation is
required. But if there is to be any conversation, it begins with identifying
and owning our stories.
